One of the most important aspect of history is for humans to learn from their past mistakes. As such recording history faithfully has been highly regarded among Chinese scholars throughout history because it is not an easy task.

Many Chinese scholars consider the official version of modern Chinese history, narrated by Communism with Chinese Characteristics (CCC), as 秽史, i.e. filthy/fake history. I am of the same opinion.

It has never been easy to be a historian in China. They had to face constant threats of violence and sometimes even death. As the result Chinese historians traditionally only write and comment on the previous dynasty while trying to preserve as much facts about the current dynasty as they safely can and hope the next batch of the historians in the next dynasty will be truthful as they are.
In this aspect, sadly China has not changed much.

[... others washed their rice in lavatory bowls, upset that the grains disappeared when they pulled the chain.]

I didn't know that flush toilets were already that popular in the KMT Peking!!! Even, in the late 1980's in Guangzhou, I saw people carrying night-soil on A-frames to fertilize the field just outside the city.

By 1949, CKS must have built a sewage system there more advanced than that in London!

KMT didn't built flush toilets at that time. Please noted that part of Shanghai was managed by Britain, France before Sino-Japanese war. They built everything for themselves. That's why most of modern cities have electric locomotive, cars, not mention about flush toilet.

As someone has pointed out, looking from Chinese history point of view, deaths caused by Mao don't particularly stand out. But that doesn't make it all right- it only tells of the misery ordinary Chinese have suffered in the hand of their rulers.

To be fair with Chinese communist party, virtually all communist regimes had to purge the population mercilessly. As an new found religious and political entity that aim to be the ONLY ONE, the communists had both the religious and political old guards they must dispose. Quite a ruthless bunch they were.

And all under the blessed landlords and Emperors. Interesting how the Economist and other Rightist journals always focus on Communism's victims. Perhaps it's because, for once, the losers were the parasites, not the peasants. Bumpkins indeed!

From Annie: Can't help, even the blind can see and the deaf can hear that the bitterness of the Anglo-Saxon's jealously of the Chinese raise. Anglo-Saxon want to freeze China at Opium War version, any progress, they will magnify the problem X times. Pathetic Anglo-Saxon, wakeup, put your economy together and don't depend on Chinese market and tourist!

Sounds to me like the peasents were the losers. They just ended up being enslaved killed, and starved again. Better times for them came with the onset of capitalism with Chinese characteristics...meaning wildly corrupt capitalism, but it still made a big impact, hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty.

I am certain the vast majority of those murdered by Mao were innocent, good people. To speak ill of the dead is wrong, to speak ill of tens of millions of murdered innocents should condemn you to a special hell Mr 'Simon'.

How is your 50 cent payout worth it to you, to spew such obscene words.

Also, I note that every one of you Communist lackeys never defends the CCP, just say that others did it too. Sorry, two murders dont cancel each other out. The CCP is an organization built on foundations of mass-murder.

Well to Mao, a few million here or there after the deaths of ~ 50 million during the previous decades was nothing at all. In retrospect, however, at the cost of these 2 million, and millions more in the years that followed, mainland China was more or less converted to a 'modern' ideology of communism whose ultimate failure led to the previously impossible move towards the right towards capitalism. the yolk of 'old society' was broken. today's china is born of modern ideological underpinnings of economics and nationalism, rather than the backwards traditional societal stratifications.

I am not quite certain what you are trying to say, but let me make my position perfectly clear:

There is no defense for the slaughter, violence, and twisted ideology of Mao and his frustrated and ignorant followers. If China had been reformed without the nightmare of Mao and brought into the 20th century in the 1950's, the Chinese people would be much further ahead both economically and socially. But perhaps Mao had too small a vision and too limited an understanding of the world to understand anything but State Terrorism?

Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Bin Laden, . . . I really can not tell them apart. They and their followers were/are the worst examples of mankind. Always ready with an excuse, always ready to murder in the name of fill-in-the-blank. Be careful whom you follow.

Nixon perhaps, Bush II definitely, but as general principle for US leaders- hogwash. You obviously have not read much on the real history of native American relations or slavery in the US to take such a simple view. Please go read some good works on these subjects before such pronouncements. I will be happy to recommend some excellent works if you desire.

Ford? He was too busy just dodging women assassins (see Squeaky Fromme of the Manson Family).
`
And with domestic problems like Whip Inflation Now.
`
But I guess prying Egypt and Israel apart on the Sinai was horrible, or having the Helsinki Accords with the Soviets was bad. Bad, bad, bad.
`
Otherwise, you realize that the unprecedented, large reductions in population of Native Americans took place before there was a United States of America? You do realize there are still Native Americans around, right?
`
Like:
" Overall, 5.2 million people, or 1.7 percent of all people in the United States, identified as American Indian and Alaska Native, either alone or in combination with one or more races."
`
Nice try at the old Soviet "what about" rhetorical tactic of interjecting non sequiturs to detract from the topic at hand.

Sorry for delayed response. Work-related travel as some others here. I did not say Pres. GW Bush created actual atrocities, but that he deserved to be on the short list of "scumbags". His invasion of Iraq was an idiotic mess and not inspired by any desire to "free" the Iraqi people. That opportunity was missed when the US military sat outside Basra in 1991 and watched local Shia slaughtered after they rose on implicit calls from the US administration. His father screwed up in 1991 when the US didn't finish the job, but Saddam was a threat to no one by 2003.

"Freeing the Iraq people from Saddam" was another post-conflict political justification after the "WMD" affair turned out to be a joke. "WMD" was also either a political tool used by Bush's GOP for domestic electoral advantage or just insanely politicized intelligence. Anyone who disagreed was simply fired until a replacement told them what he wanted to hear.

Messrs. GW Bush, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld deserve to go down in American political history as among the biggest bunch of oafs or clowns of all time. Colin Powell was prophetic when he stated, "You break it, you own it." And they went ahead and broke it over the objection of piles of generals and intelligence leaders who said much the same thing. We will never know how many Iraqis really died for their lack of judgement, or what the final cost to all those injured soldiers will be in the longterm. THAT is an policy atrocity in itself, if not one of intent.

I don't expect to change your mind, and I know you don't expect to change mine either but I bid you to read John Bolton's assertion that Iraq was not a failure.

Saddam believed himself to be a reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. He spent over $600 Million rebuilding Babylon. Yes, Babylon of old, Babylon of renown. The great and unholy city known to be the epicenter of all idolatry.

The guy was confirmed by every independent observer to still be holding massive stockpiles of WMD (chemical weapons) as well as have a nuclear program.

It is too early to tell yet what Iraq will become, but I do think Obama is committing it to a policy of ruin by backing out too early.

We have found out one thing and that is not to get involved in the affairs of islamic nations using ground soldiers that cause long-protracted wars. China will be doing this more and more on an economical scale with Iran, and it will find itself in some hairy situations that it has never experienced before because they are quite inexperienced when it comes to dealing with Islamists.

The Russians failed over and over to assert their communist interests in the ME over the Cold War and in return they imported a radical Islamist faction into Chechnya and are constantly bombarded with terrorist attacks from time to time.

In my opinion there can be no constitutional republic in ME nations because they can't separate their radical islamist ideals from separation of powers, rule of law, property rights, freedom of press, freedom of speech, life, liberty, PoH, etc.

The Arab World mentally operates in the 11th Century of conquest and pillage. Jihad is the name of the game and the conquest and reclamation of their contrived holy land in Israel, whilst wiping all Israelites off the map is the ultimate checkmate for them. He that doth support Israel, supports truth, justice, and the American way. That man is an infidel in the eyes of the Ayatollah and factions of islamist who rape, maim, kill, murder, sodomize, and torture innocent people all in the name of the religion of peace; the moon god, Allah.

Now, where there is hopelessness, there is light. They can choose freedom, but they would have to deny their radicalized madrassas, jihadist ultimatums, and their perpetual hate of the west. The choice is theirs, god-willing.

As for the foreigners, the KMT already got rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII.
The KMT asserted tariff autonomy prior to WWII.
There was the matter of the concessions the Soviets secured, as well as acceptance of their Mongolian puppet state.
Mao recognized the arrangements with Mongolia, and took some time to coax the Soviets out of Manchuria.
So no "one mighty blow" there.

50 million dead? OK,you also can say it is 500 million dead if you like.

You worshipped Chiang Kai-shek, corrupt dictator and historic loser? too many people died of famine under his government which is the reason why his government would have been overthrowed in mainland China. Right,we don't deny that he learned lesson from the past and did some well in Taiwan.But it doesn't cover the facts.

50 million is a pretty reasonable number. 20-50 million died in the Great Leap Forward alone.

I don't worship Chiang at all. He was a brutal dictator to be certain. But you have two Chinese experiments, and his was clearly the success story.

I don't know where you get the idea he caused famines. Do you have any sources for this? The reason his government was overthrown was due to corruption and the fact that his army died fighting Japanese, while Communists hid in the mountains and kept their strength. The US also dropped support to him after WW2, while the Soviets continued to vigorously support the CCP.

You probably won't get that history if you're only looking at books published in the PRC though. This stuff is out there in history books if you take the time to search.

General Chiang did not build it. Prosperity and decent government only happened after a long painful evolution between the Goumindong and the native Taiwanese. Taiwan was just his sanctuary, backstopped by the United States.

From Annie: Since 1949, Chiang Kai Shek took the wealth of whole China + international aid, and foucsed in an island and polulation that is less than 1/10 of mainland China. What he left behind were war-torn economy and infrastructure, millions starved people for CCP. And 60yr later, please quantify Taiwan's dependency in China. Please do your homework!

You are right that the big successes only came after his death. But look at his policy towards for example, intellectuals and small business owners, compared to those ideas of Mao. It's not an accident that his policies eventually led to a better result.

I wouldn't put much stock in the US backstop. Probably half the State Dept. prefered the CCP to KMT, and the Soviets supported the CCP even more adamantly than the US supported Taiwan.

Chiang had a couple bars of gold and the reluctant aid of the US. The mainland had the full backing of the whole Warsaw Pact. What was Chiang going to buy with that gold anyway? The US was very antagonistic towards him at first (they supported General Sun over him and hoped for a coup d'etat). Europe was devastated from the war, and dealing with Japan would have been a death sentence. All that gold did was back up the currency I guess. But again, except for secondhand American fighter jets, Taiwan wasn't importing all that much at the time

The CCP had plenty of Soviet aid (after the Soviets stole all the Japanese factories in Manchuria) so it's a lousy excuse to say they had to contend on their own while Chiang got all sorts of help.

Taiwan today is not dependent on China. It imports more from Japan than China, and FDI into China peaked in 2009. It has since declined and flowed into Southeast Asia. Taiwan would get on fine without China, just like it had for 50 years prior to opening trade relations with the PRC.

In 1950 the ratio of Chinese:Taiwanese GDP per capita was 2:3. Today it's about 1:3. After 60 years, that little bit of gold and a little bit of US aid in 1950 has really had that big of an impact? Something else is surely going on.

I wasn't meaning to compare Mao to Chiang. Chiang was more your normal Chinese Generalissimo and probably closer to folks like Yuan Shikai or even Sun Yat Sen. Always thought Mao was a thug and his widow even more. Yuan Shikai is the first real Han patriot in my mind for ushering out the old Qing dynasty. His suppression of the Boxers even while the Empress Dowager tried to use them and subsequent forcing of Prince Chun out of politics a few years later cleared the way for Sun Yat Sen and the others.

Yuan's bid to become a new monarch could be understood as modeling after the Japanese Meiji experience with the support of American advisor Frank Goodnow. Not the lies told by later propagandists. Mao was just a murderous Stalinist thug, period. Chiang always had good ties to the Shanghai business community, which translated over into Taiwan (excepting the native Taiwanese of course).

The US backstop has never been firm since the Nixon adminstration, but was important in the early years of the ROC. Your observation of the split in the US State Dept is a good one. Not sure even today how PRC-ROC is viewed pragmatically there. The "One Nation, Two states" fiction is wearing thin now that the ROC has actively laid claim to the Daiyou/Senkakus Islands as well as PRC.

I thank the memory of a revered old emitus Professor and KMT alumnus in my undergraduate Chinese studies classes all these many years ago. Still recall his seminar on the late Qi debate between Legalists and Confucianists all these years later.

You assume the Party and the Chairman were one. That just wasn't so. The things you speak of- serfdom, feudalism, devil foreigners- were also on their way out well before the Cultural Revolution. And the CCP's governance and the nation did better once the Gang of Eight was disposed of. The "new" China came about because of the actions of many patriots well before and after Mao. And Taiwan/ROC has done well for itself despite the old Guard who supposedly supported this serfdom, feudalism, and consorted with devil foreigners. Try to free yourself from the propaganda and see the real story of China's rise as a modern nation. Think of China's success coming from 殚力 as well as 奋斗 .

You have done well to read only the indoctrinated propagandist tripe your overlord masters have given you. Afterall you are just a slave to the CCP still.

Your masters don't recognize the right to liberty, life, or the pursuit of happiness. You can't vote on any civil liberty or human rights issue? What's that, the government doesn't trust you? You should be outraged at the atrocity your government STILL commits.

Aborting 3rd trimester babies and forcing women into sterilizations, while they advocate a gender-genocide policy. Taking away property at will without proper compensation. Flooding whole valleys with dams that have displaced millions of people without prior notification. Look at what South Korea,Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan have accomplished under the beneficial relationship with the free world.

Just ask yourself why these countries are so much more prosperous than mainland China. Why must you continue to support and justify the demons who lead your country?

Do something different for a change and start a liberty movement. Ignorance is bliss.

All it took was 50 million dead. Funny how Chiang Kai-shek built a more prosperous and free country without the CCP or the Chairman, or nearly as much bloodshed.

Oh, but let's ignore that, Mao Zedong wan sui.]

CKS never built any "prosperous and free county". It was the corruption of the KMT under HIM and his merciless murders of the oppositions that brought forth Mao and his CCP anyway.

Even if CKS had wanted to do so, he did not have the power. He did not have the control of all China. He was just one of the warlords in China-- Although the biggest and most powerful. He had as much power to impose his will on all China as Uncle Sam has in the world today. Only after CKS was driven off to Taiwan that he became the sole warlord there and had absolute power over that one island.

Mao's situation was different. He came to control of all continental China through military conquest by winning the Chinese Civil War. And if anyone, like the feudal landlords, who failed to follow his line, he simply shot them.

For Uncle to do in the world what Mao did in China, Chairmen Obama, or Bush, would have to conquer all the other great powers in the world. Not that it did not want to-- It's attempts to do that to some not-so-great powers like Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan, etc, show what the result could be.

To compare China and India, you have to compare its history. A lot of people don't want to admit it, but China got to where it is today, because she paid a heavy price from 1950-1980. The question is how many millions of Brahmins and wealth landowners is India willing to murder/kill to eliminate caste quickly. China did that in 1950s, but murdering 1-2 Million feudal landlords every year for a five year period. In 1949 China was one of the most unequal countries (as well as poorest) countries in the world to be in one of the most equal (as still poorest) countries in the world.}

[Michael Dunnein reply to happyfish18Sep 6th, 05:38
As for the foreigners, the KMT already got rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII.

The KMT asserted tariff autonomy prior to WWII.]

Every time in a KMT vs CCP debate, some people always throw out the line like "If the KMT were still running China, it would have achieved this or that wonderful things..."

So, are you saying that, if the KMT did NOT "get rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII", Mao would not have done so?

[There was the matter of the concessions the Soviets secured, as well as acceptance of their Mongolian puppet state.

Mao recognized the arrangements with Mongolia, and took some time to coax the Soviets out of Manchuria.]

Chiang might not recognize it but he could do nothing concrete about it than Mao could. Stalin was am imperialist in communist coats. The difference in military power between fUSSR and China at that time was just too big for anyone to do anything about it. That problem has to be left to future generations to sort out.

[So no "one mighty blow" there.]

I thought Mao's "People War" concept was never a "one mighty blow"!

John Keegan:

"Paper Introduction:

Abstract Mao Tse-tung was one of the most important military as well as political figures of the twentieth century. His doctrine of protracted guerilla revolutionary war had a major influence on the history of the second half of the twentieth century, and his military doctrines were successfully employed by the North Vietnamese to stymie the United States during the Vietnam war. Yet--in contrast to most famous generals--his military career is not one of dramatic victories won in the field. Indeed, his most famous single military exploit is a retreat, the Long March. In order to understand the nature and significance of Mao's military thought, we must understand both the political context of that thought and the military context in which Mao operated."

Your post doesn't make much sense.
`
Especially with a sentence like this:
"So, are you saying that, if the KMT did NOT "get rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII", Mao would not have done so?"
`
So an odd, tendentious line of questioning on a contrived counterfactual, that attempts to put words in the mouth of another person? Not the best rhetorical approach.
`
To get to the bottom of things, why are you so antsy about these historical facts?
"the KMT already got rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII.
The KMT asserted tariff autonomy prior to WWII."
`
No one is saying the KMT would have become wonderful after the Civil War because of these events/achievements that I know of.
`
And again, Mao had to demonstrate patience in negotiating away Soviet concessions (getting a railroad back in 1952, getting a naval base in 1955). In addition, he did put up with Hong Kong and Macau.

I always find it disturbing that Chinese people refer to their dictatorial leaders as "uncle" or "grandpa." Perhaps it's something related to ancient paternalistic emperor-worship mentality, but I can imagine that this is a useful propaganda tool. Papa Xi wants to guide his beloved, ignorant children to prosperity. Right.

One tangent I think is interesting here is the idea that somehow China's natural condition (or the natural condition of any society) is that of a huge centrally managed modern nation-state. What makes you think that the warlord period wasn't China's natural state and in fact the best form of government? I would suggest that Germans living in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland today probably have more in common culturally (and certainly linguistically) than Chinese from Manchuria, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Of course as a foreigner in China, bringing this sort of idea up immediately gets the pre-programmed response of "All Westerners just want China divided and weak!" So that's not much of a starter in China today.

I don't know much about India so I don't know how that fits in. I'd argue that India today is more equal than China (and definitely poorer). India's caste system is also technically illegal, and there are government programs to try to eliminate it. Whether or not that is successful is another story.

Meanwhile China's caste system is institutionalized. Having a hukou from a major city opens enormous welfare improvements over a rural hukou. A friend of mine with a rural hukou was forced to pay a 12,000 yuan deposit before visiting Singapore last year, while a traveler with an urban hukou would not have to pay any deposit. Rural hukou holders can't get permits to visit Taiwan at all, and Hong Kong travel is heavily restricted. Obviously birth control policies are another form of classing. Rich can have as many babies as they like while the poor cannot.

[Michael Dunnein reply to Devils Advocate_1Sep 7th, 13:56
Your post doesn't make much sense.
`
Especially with a sentence like this:
"So, are you saying that, if the KMT did NOT "get rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII", Mao would not have done so?"
`
So an odd, tendentious line of questioning on a contrived counterfactual, that attempts to put words in the mouth of another person? Not the best rhetorical approach.]

That is the kind of arguments that I have encountered on this forum. And that kind of arguments "doesn't make sense" is also what I am trying to say.

[To get to the bottom of things, why are you so antsy about these historical facts?

"the KMT already got rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII.

The KMT asserted tariff autonomy prior to WWII."
`
No one is saying the KMT would have become wonderful after the Civil War because of these events/achievements that I know of.]

I am not "antsy about these historical facts". I believe each (KMT and CCP) should be given the credit where it is due. KMT could not stand up to external threat/aggression is a historical fact-- Not much better the the Qing in its decline phase. The CCP did and did so against the greatest powers on earth, and often did it preemptively, e.g. Korea, Sino-Soviet border clashes.

[And again, Mao had to demonstrate patience in negotiating away Soviet concessions (getting a railroad back in 1952, getting a naval base in 1955). In addition, he did put up with Hong Kong and Macau.]

Yes, considering the fact that Stalin was basically an imperialist in a communist coat and the vast imbalance in the militaries between China and Stalin's USSR.

On Hong Kong and Macau, I suspect that that was due to the diplomatic foresight of Zhou Enlai. I think Zhou wanted to leave a channel of communication open with the West. I think that foresight was also justified later-- Deng's reform and opening up would have been a lot more difficult without Hong Kong.

[Ghentisin reply to Devils Advocate_1Sep 7th, 15:13
I always find it disturbing that Chinese people refer to their dictatorial leaders as "uncle" or "grandpa." Perhaps it's something related to ancient paternalistic emperor-worship mentality, but I can imagine that this is a useful propaganda tool. Papa Xi wants to guide his beloved, ignorant children to prosperity. Right.]

Maybe, those dictatorial leaders DID do something valuable to China and the Chinese people? CKS was NO less a dictator than Mao. The biggest difference between the 2 is that he was a FAILED dictator while Mao was a successful one. Yet there are still a lot of people worshiping CKS even TODAY-- Not just the Chinese but some non-Chinese as well, including YOU and Bis. I always find it very "disturbing" when some non-Chinese choose to worship a FAILED Chinese dictator-- Maybe there is some insidious reasons behind such a worship?

[One tangent I think is interesting here is the idea that somehow China's natural condition (or the natural condition of any society) is that of a huge centrally managed modern nation-state. What makes you think that the warlord period wasn't China's natural state and in fact the best form of government? I would suggest that Germans living in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland today probably have more in common culturally (and certainly linguistically) than Chinese from Manchuria, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. ]

Then,what makes you think that it isn't? If it were NOT, the Darwinist principle would automatically make certain that China MUST disintegrate. The fact that it does not while you wish it be tells me something about your thoughts and intentions on China-- Especially since you don't seem to want the US and other Western countries to have warlord-periods as their "natural states".

[Of course as a foreigner in China, bringing this sort of idea up immediately gets the pre-programmed response of "All Westerners just want China divided and weak!" So that's not much of a starter in China today.]

"All Westerners just want China divided and weak!"??? That must be YOUR private thought. I know there ARE many Westerners who want China to be united and strong. WatchingChina on TE forum is one of the Westerners who are more pro-China than any nationalist Chinese I have come across.

Having said that, there is no lack of Westerners who "want China divided and weak" and that is a fact. Can't see why the neo-cons want China to be united and strong, for example. Hell! Even some ethnic Chinese want the whole China to became a British colony so that he could get his inner self-hate satisfied!

[I don't know much about India so I don't know how that fits in. I'd argue that India today is more equal than China (and definitely poorer). India's caste system is also technically illegal, and there are government programs to try to eliminate it. Whether or not that is successful is another story.]

I don't know much about India either. My own position is that India is entitled to taking the Indian way to modernity and China is entitled to taking the Chinese route. Clearly some people, like yourself, for some undeclared reasons, seem to think that China is NOT entitled to do it the Chinese way!!!

[Meanwhile China's caste system is institutionalized. Having a hukou from a major city opens enormous welfare improvements over a rural hukou. A friend of mine with a rural hukou was forced to pay a 12,000 yuan deposit before visiting Singapore last year, while a traveler with an urban hukou would not have to pay any deposit. Rural hukou holders can't get permits to visit Taiwan at all, and Hong Kong travel is heavily restricted. Obviously birth control policies are another form of classing. Rich can have as many babies as they like while the poor cannot.]

Yes, and that is not the only flaws in China's current social system. Several of these flaws have been rectified over the past decade. The 孫志剛 case is one of them. The scrapping of the agriculture tax is another. More changes will come in due course.

While the hukou system might be unjust in some sense, it partially had the desirable effect of limiting the possibility of slum towns in big cities when China could not afford to provide accommodation for large numbers of rural migrants if they moved into cities.

And it is not just a one-way discrimination the way you put it. Rural residents have their own rural privileges when they are back in their rural homelands, which are NOT available to city dwellers but you "don't want to admit it". These rural privileges is also "institutionalized" too.

RE: Dictator worship. This is something you created. I never said that. I said there were two experiments and CKS's was more successful. Does that equate to worship? Either way, Chinese (or Indians or Americans) should never worship ANY politicians. Politicians are just as self interested as everyone else.

RE Warlordism: Again, you enjoy creating things I didn't say. I never said I wanted China to disintegrate, but you wish I did so you can argue that topic. Instead, you proved exactly my point, that no one can discuss this topic in China in a rational way. If you notice, worldwide the trend is towards smaller political units, not larger ones. You have many countries with strong local/weak central governments like the US/Germany/Switzerland, and you also have countries where portions are seeking independence (Scotland in UK or Quebec in Canada). Note the big difference between these countries and China: these countries can have rational discussions about these topics without resorting to strawman arguments. But to talk about Taiwanese independence or greater autonomy for Tibet... absolutely can't discuss these things in a rational way in China. Yet everyone elsewhere manages to do so.

RE Hukou: You're right that one positive effect is a reduction of slums in major cities. But you could just as easily argue that there are no slums because there are no property rights. If an unsightly area develops, the bulldozers come in and it's gone. Good luck trying that tactic in Rio de Janerio or Manila. The people would have their leaders' heads on pikes.

I've never seen a benefit to having a rural hukou over an urban one. Can you explain what benefits exist? You seem to assume that everyone knows about these privileges, but I've never seen a Chinese friend trade an urban hukou for a rural one.

[Ghentisin reply to Devils Advocate_156 mins ago
RE: Dictator worship. This is something you created. I never said that. I said there were two experiments and CKS's was more successful. Does that equate to worship? Either way, Chinese (or Indians or Americans) should never worship ANY politicians. Politicians are just as self interested as everyone else.]

Yes, all politicians are self-serving. That I can agree. But some could be so to a lesser degree. Take Deng for example, he could have just enjoyed holding on to political power like Hua guofeng and did nothing else much, but he USED his power to set a course of reform that has benefited practically all people in China.

[RE Warlordism: Again, you enjoy creating things I didn't say. I never said I wanted China to disintegrate, but you wish I did so you can argue that topic. Instead, you proved exactly my point, that no one can discuss this topic in China in a rational way. If you notice, worldwide the trend is towards smaller political units, not larger ones. You have many countries with strong local/weak central governments like the US/Germany/Switzerland, and you also have countries where portions are seeking independence (Scotland in UK or Quebec in Canada). Note the big difference between these countries and China: these countries can have rational discussions about these topics without resorting to strawman arguments. But to talk about Taiwanese independence or greater autonomy for Tibet... absolutely can't discuss these things in a rational way in China. Yet everyone elsewhere manages to do so. ]

If you go back to some TE topics, you should find one saying that discussions about Beijing's Tibet policy is starting to appear in China. A couple of posts by New Conservative pointed out that this was the sign that the integration process had basically been completed and there was practically no serious risk of Tibet seceding. The West take these topics at ease because their integration process had been competed a couple of centuries ago and there is no risk such scenarios became true.

[RE Hukou: You're right that one positive effect is a reduction of slums in major cities. But you could just as easily argue that there are no slums because there are no property rights. If an unsightly area develops, the bulldozers come in and it's gone. Good luck trying that tactic in Rio de Janerio or Manila. The people would have their leaders' heads on pikes.]

Yes, you can argue it that way but whichever way it is, China has managed to avoid one of the worst problem of uncontrolled urbanization. The question of urbanization has come up again in the past couple of months and many experts still think that the new phase should also be stretched out to a decade or more. Despite all these ghost cities and empty apartments, China simply cannot find homes for 50% of its population, who are consider rural, if they all move to cities or town within a couple of years.

By the time urbanization is complete, "hukou" will die a natural death-- And so will Chinese peasantry as a class.

[I've never seen a benefit to having a rural hukou over an urban one. Can you explain what benefits exist? You seem to assume that everyone knows about these privileges, but I've never seen a Chinese friend trade an urban hukou for a rural one.]

Again, on a previous topic on these forums, a Chinese poster advised that anyone still holding a rural hukou should not give it up because one is still entitled to the land and other things in his home village. I can't spend the time looking for that post in the archive now.

Another example is a woman I talked to at a McDonald's here in HK. She came to HK LEGALLY at the early phase of the reform. As a result, her land right back in her home village was cancelled and assigned to those who chose to stay. Now, while she has to struggle to make a few dimes at McDonald's in HK, she told me that those villagers who stayed behind now receive rents for their lands, which are now occupied by factories and they no longer need to work for a living. Her story is also supported by those of my clients who set up factories in the Pearl Delta 15-20 years ago. They seldom had local villagers as workers because locals did not want that kind of low paid jobs. "They have too many opportunities to make money", my clients said!

In HK also, the so called "indigenous villagers" have the right to build houses in their villages with land often cheaply supplied by the government and that can make them instant millionaires. This has caused much resentment by the non-indigenous Hongkongers.

Traditionally in China, villagers tend to have some special rights in their home villages, which are not given to outsiders. Occasionally, some outsider could become a villager if he was accepted by most and went through some process of being integrated into that village-- Like going through some ritual and giving a dinner party to the elders, etc. That is an equivalent of getting one's Green Card, I guess. If you are really familiar with China like you said, you should have picked up such knowledge from your Chinese contacts and friends already .

"The CCP did and did so against the greatest powers on earth, and often did it preemptively, e.g. Korea"
`
That is a pretty deluded statement. If the Soviets didn't back the Chinese, the Chinese would have gotten shellacked by the Americans in Korea. Truman kept it a "limited war" to avoid World War Three.
`
I don't think Mao's aggression in Korea is anything to brag about. The guy was culpable in instigating the war, and then escalated it with Chinese intervention.
`
And it seems to be forgotten that:
1) The Americans had radically scaled down their military after WWII
2) The Americans were concerned about the actions of the Soviets outside of Korea, like Europe (hence the air force in Korea was limited and left outnumbered in fighter jets)
`
Bottom line: Pretty dumb comment.

[Michael Dunnein reply to Devils Advocate_1Sep 8th, 14:51
"The CCP did and did so against the greatest powers on earth, and often did it preemptively, e.g. Korea"
`
That is a pretty deluded statement. If the Soviets didn't back the Chinese, the Chinese would have gotten shellacked by the Americans in Korea. Truman kept it a "limited war" to avoid World War Three.]

"If the Soviets didn't back the Chinese,..."

It seems that YOU are pretty deluded as to be "so antsy about these historical facts", which is that China, despite its backwardness and poverty, DID fought the US to a standstill in Korea.

I have come across at least one claim that China requested Soviet air-cover when it was preparing its intervention in Korea but Stalin ignored that request initially. It was only AFTER Chinese forces had demonstrated success on the ground that Stalin began to send in his Migs.

[I don't think Mao's aggression in Korea is anything to brag about. The guy was culpable in instigating the war, and then escalated it with Chinese intervention.]

Then, what is there to brag about "the KMT already got rid of most concessions and extraterritoriality prior to renewal of the Civil War, after WWII. The KMT asserted tariff autonomy prior to WWII" when it was the KMT national government, which was supposed to be able to do such things, but had most of these done for it-- First as an unintended consequence of Japan's aggression, and then by the 2 Atom Bombs and the Russian offensives against the Japanese?

I don't know what exactly Mao's involvement BEFORE the start of that war was. It is clear, however, that it was not up to him to decide on that issue. It didn't matter one bit what Mao had wanted UNLESS Kim and Stalin were committed to fight a war there.

[And it seems to be forgotten that:
1) The Americans had radically scaled down their military after WWII]

And you have forgotten that China was materially totally exhausted after a century of chaos and revolutions, famines and foreign invasions and had just finished a destructive civil war.

[2) The Americans were concerned about the actions of the Soviets outside of Korea, like Europe (hence the air force in Korea was limited and left outnumbered in fighter jets)]

Since you chose to become a "global policeman", you have these global responsibilities. The Russians and the Chinese seemed cleverer. They got others to fight their wars-- Stalin got Mao to fight his (and Kim's) war in Korea. Mao got Ho to fight his war in Vietnam. Although Uncle did managed to get its own back in Afghanistan vs the Bear later.

[Michael Dunnein reply to Devils Advocate_1Sep 8th, 14:51
.
[2) The Americans were concerned about the actions of the Soviets outside of Korea, like Europe (hence the air force in Korea was limited and left outnumbered in fighter jets)]

One more comment about this point that you raised:

China did not have the ability to produce Migs in those days. All the Migs used in the Korean war came from fUSSR. This necessarily means that for every Mig that went to Korea, there was one fewer that could go to Europe...

My advice is to use some common sense AND don't call other's comments "dump" without first taking a good look at your own.

Getting involved in instigating a war is not an act of standing up to the world. Let alone escalating the conflict by intervening directly.
`
You can ramble on all you want and try and dodge around that fact, but China was on the aggressor side when it came to the Korean war.
`
And may want to check chronology - There were MiG's over Korea on November 1st of 1950. The battle of the Chosin Reservoir commenced around November 27th of 1950. The battle of Unsan was still going on at the time (last week of October, onto November 4th or so).
`
And the Soviets had a pretty large military. The country was quite a bit more militarized than most.
`
In fact in 1950 the Soviets may have been spending something like 91 billion dollars (in 1986 dollars) on its military to the US's 69 billion dollars. See table 5 on page 17 of http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2757.pdf
`
So the "fewer MiGs for Europe" argument doesn't really stand up when that kind military industrial complex gets reviewed more closely.
`
And if you hadn't noticed, Western Europe was deem pretty important to the United States (hence the forming of NATO the prior year and the Marshal Plan), so when it came to S. Korea it was fighting with two hands tied behind its back:
- Making sure Western Europe is secured
- Try to avoid escalation to a full scale war with the Soviets and risk nuclear war
`
Never mind it was also a UN operation, so allies had to be taken into account.
`
Those concerns were pretty well documented.
`
Hence a sizable military buildup was conducted in Europe (notably Germany, France and the UK) at the same time by the United States.
`
Hence the use of terms like police action and limited war with respect to the Korean War.

[Michael Dunnein reply to Devils Advocate_1Sep 12th, 03:53
Getting involved in instigating a war is not an act of standing up to the world. Let alone escalating the conflict by intervening directly.]

If you said that to Mr Kim, he would point out that American North was "instigating war" against the American South. It turns out that "Both Rhee and Kim Il Sung wanted to unite the Korean peninsula under their respective governments,..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee That could not be said of the American case.

China's intervention in Korea was a direct result of non-Korean troops entering the North of the 38th parallel, which China gave a lot of advanced warning. If Uncle considered what happened half-a-world away was a threat against its interest and security, China had every right to consider the same when its most important buffer state was invaded. China had no intention to wait for McArthur's troops to get to Marco Polo Bridge before taking any action.

[You can ramble on all you want and try and dodge around that fact, but China was on the aggressor side when it came to the Korean war.]

You can rant as much as you want but all you have said is along the "Do as I say, not as I do" line.

[And may want to check chronology - There were MiG's over Korea on November 1st of 1950. The battle of the Chosin Reservoir commenced around November 27th of 1950. The battle of Unsan was still going on at the time (last week of October, onto November 4th or so).]

Who's Migs were they? How many were there? Were they specifically there to provide air cover for the Chinese troops?

According to my reading (admittedly not extensive as yours), North Korea had T-34 at a time when Mao's armies only had captured Japanese tanks.

[And the Soviets had a pretty large military. The country was quite a bit more militarized than most.
`
In fact in 1950 the Soviets may have been spending something like 91 billion dollars (in 1986 dollars) on its military to the US's 69 billion dollars. See table 5 on page 17 of http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2757.pdf
`
So the "fewer MiGs for Europe" argument doesn't really stand up when that kind military industrial complex gets reviewed more closely.]

I believe the Soviet military was always very large until after its collapse.

The US had the support of its European allies. Together they were the largest and most advanced economy in the world by a HUGE margin.

[And if you hadn't noticed, Western Europe was deem pretty important to the United States (hence the forming of NATO the prior year and the Marshal Plan), so when it came to S. Korea it was fighting with two hands tied behind its back:
- Making sure Western Europe is secured
- Try to avoid escalation to a full scale war with the Soviets and risk nuclear war]

And China had to fight with a SHATTERED economy, obsolete equipment, which were also in short supply, etc. etc...

[Never mind it was also a UN operation, so allies had to be taken into account.
`
Those concerns were pretty well documented.
`
Hence a sizable military buildup was conducted in Europe (notably Germany, France and the UK) at the same time by the United States.
`
Hence the use of terms like police action and limited war with respect to the Korean War.]

If you your kicks out of kicking arses around the world, that's the price you should expect to pay.

I think Obama recently said that Uncle can play the global policeman role to the world any more. You should have a word with him.

Nice try at rationalizing militarism. Mao was building troops up once the N. Koreans kicked off their offensive. And after repatriating Korean soldiers from the PLA to the North Koreans earlier on.
`
And he wasn't justified in entering a conflict that he helped give at least backing to the aggressor (as indicated by Soviet Archives).
`
Basically he acted like an outlaw.
`
As a matter of self-defense, the United Nations troops had a right to move north of the 38th parallel. At a minimum to secure the south from further aggression from a clearly militaristic entity.
`
Now some would also say, out of self defense, they had a right to suppress the North Korean state, along the lines of "we wouldn't have stopped at the Rhine in fighting Hitler."
`
Personally I think the UN should have stopped advancing a little North of Pyongyang and Wonsan.

"the US had the support of its European allies. Together they were the largest and most advanced economy in the world by a HUGE margin."
`
Germany was demilitarized at the time. Most other European militaries were not exactly in top shape in 1950 either since rebuilding their economies was top priority. France was spending like a 10th of what the US was; while Italy's spend was a pittance.
`
Britain had just gone through some deep cuts at the time (like on the order of 25%).

[Michael Dunnein reply to Devils Advocate_1Sep 16th, 21:47
Nice try at rationalizing militarism. Mao was building troops up once the N. Koreans kicked off their offensive.]

So? If you see a fire on your neighbour's house, it would be wise to get the hose ready.

[ And after repatriating Korean soldiers from the PLA to the North Koreans earlier on.]

Those soldiers belong to the Koreans.

[And he wasn't justified in entering a conflict that he helped give at least backing to the aggressor (as indicated by Soviet Archives).]

If Mao had any pretence of belonging to the communist world, he had to demonstrate that by, at least, giving moral support to a fellow communist. The Soviet Archives also would naturally want Mao to share the responsibility of that war. As I have said before, Mao (and China) had NO independent power to start that war. That power was only held in the hands of Stalin and Kim.

I have heard of retribution and organized purges and killings following the end of the Chinese Civil War. However, I seem to recall off the top of my head the number killed in the neighborhood of 500,000 or 600,000.
`
Now considering there seems to be an academic fashion to throw out large numbers, I think it would have helped to give some idea on how this estimate on mortality was arrived at:
"By the end of 1952 up to 2m Chinese had been murdered."
`
2 million is a big number, and far higher than 600,000.
`
To be honest I don't have a source on hand to cite for my guestimate. However, this article mentioned the author drawing upon archives, and the killings seem to play a central role in the narrative of the history. So thought it would help to have some further transparency into sources.

Recommend you take a look at Dikotter's other book, Mao's Great Famine. He has an extremely extensive bibliography and doesn't try to embellish things for thrill factor (like Jung Chang's "Mao: The Unknown Story"). Of course this one might be different, but his first book was well researched.

Since you are pulling numbers "off the top of my head", how about you providing some reliable references? It sounds like you don't like the numbers in the article so you concoct numbers of your own. If you obtain a copy of the study I am sure you will learn a great deal. Your head not withstanding.

My issue is with academic fashion that seems to push high numbers (high counters). I would like to see more sources/citations supporting high numbers.
`
As for the 500,000 to 600,000 figure, I have seen it, but don't necessarily commit to memory footnotes and bibliographies on every issue.
`
That being said, "The Complete History of China" by J.A.G. Roberts asserted on page 422 that:
"The class of landlord and rural powerholders had been devastated, with estimates of the numbers who were killed ranging from 200,000 to 800,000 to a million, two million or even more. 13 The complicity of the mass of the rural population in these events assured the CCP that there could be no unmaking of the revolution."

note 13 cited page 87 of Teiwes, which I believe is Frederick Teiwes, who wrote "Establishment and consolidation of the New Regime."
`
So I am not crazy with the ranges I recollected. Granted talk of one or two million seems to be out there longer than expected (the above book was published in 2003).
`
Otherwise Yang Kuisong's estimate of "a minimum 712,000 were executed"for the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries gets quoted a bit. This was from the piece entitled "Reconsidering the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries" The China Quarterly.
`
Wikipedia cites it (don't like citing Wikipedia but it is accessible), and here is a blog going over his work:http://www.haohaoreport.com/l/31094
`
Then David Priestland wrote in "The Red Flag" on page 299:
""These campaigns involved extreme violence. 60 The suppression of counter-revolutionaries campaign alone led to between 800,000 and 2 million deaths, and countless more were dragged before mass public trials."
`
Bottom line: There are ranges being given. The lower ranges are not too far different from past figures that I recalled. I think the higher ranges need more documentation, especially if getting up in the 2 million range.